Mark Warner on Abortion

Democratic Jr Senator; previously Governor

Support Roe v. Wade, but respect differing views

Q: Do you support a constitutional amendment to limit abortion? When, if ever, should abortion be legal?

Warner: I support Roe v Wade. But I think folks with differing views on the issue of abortion can all agree that we ought to do everything
we can to reduce unintended pregnancies. I signed a bill when I was governor to require parental notification with a judicial bypass. As the father of three daughters, I am very comfortable with this law.

Jim Gilmore: As governor of Virginia, I stood for the sanctity of life, pushing through legislation that created a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions, required parental notification for minors and banned partial birth abortion.
As your U.S. senator, I will continue to work to preserve Virginia values including the protection of human life.

Protect responsible Choice

Mark Warner trusts the women of Virginia to make responsible choices affecting their lives.
While Mark opposed the 24-hour waiting period, he supports Virginia law. Mark supports the Roe v. Wade decision that protects a woman’s right to choose, and he’ll fight further efforts to chip away at that right.

Source: Campaign web site, MarkWarner2001.org/issues
, Nov 6, 2001

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.

Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.